ADOLFO MACIAS-MADRIGAL V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-73062 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADOLFO JOAQUIN MACIASMADRIGAL, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-73062 Agency No. A204-709-447 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Adolfo Joaquin Macias-Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Because Macias-Madrigal conceded he was removable based on a reason to believe he is a drug trafficker, an offense covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal where Macias-Madrigal’s contentions do not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). To the extent MaciasMadrigal challenges the particularly serious crime determination, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency); see also Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to review particularly serious crime determination where there is no assertion of legal or constitutional error and petitioner sought “re-weighing of the factors involved in that discretionary determination”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of removal because Macias-Madrigal failed to show it is more likely than not he 2 20-73062 would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 20-73062
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
